Sovereign Network Homes (202230369)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230369

Sovereign Network Homes

4 June 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. record keeping;
2. handling of the resident’s reports of heating issues.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy that began on 27 November 2020. The property is a 2 bedroom 12th floor flat, and the landlord is a housing association.
The resident’s complaint to the landlord was made on her behalf by a representative. For the purposes of this report both the resident, and her representative are referred to as ‘the resident’.
The landlord has held the head lease to the resident’s block since 11 December 2017. The freeholder of the block has a managing agent. The managing agent contracts the management of the block to a building manager, that has its own maintenance contractors. For the purposes of this report both the managing agent, and its building manager are referred to as the ‘managing agent’.
The block is heated via a communal heating system that links to heating interface units (HIU) in each flat. The landlord’s lease states that the freeholder is responsible for repairs to the structure, communal apparatus, and common parts, and the landlord for repairs to the property. ‘The property’ is defined in the first schedule of the lease, and the definition includes the HIU. The lease further defines ‘communal apparatus’ as including any “HIU serving multiple parts of the Estate but excluding the HIU solely serving any of the flats”.

Summary of events

On 3 March 2023 the resident made her complaint to the landlord. The key points were as follows:
1. She stated that on 1 November 2022 she had reported to the landlord that her heating was not working. She said despite numerous engineer visits this remained the case 4 months later.
2. She said that the engineers that had attended had been unsure what they were there for, and given multiple different explanations of what the issue was. She said the engineers argued amongst themselves blaming each other, and at times had been directly argumentative with her.
3. She said that the landlord was constantly leaving her in the dark as to what was happening, and was poor at returning calls or emails. She described the impact on her wellbeing of being without central heating through the winter, and the financial burden caused by her need to use temporary heating.
On 21 March 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. The key points were as follows:
1. It stated that the resident had reported her heating issue on 2 December 2022, and that there had been around 6 contractor attendances since that time. It said that this had included its own, and the managing agent’s contractors, as well as the HIU manufacturer. It said that temporary heaters had been provided.
2. It explained that it was responsible for repairs to the resident’s radiators, but that the managing agent was responsible for repairs to her HIU. It said that it had identified the cause of the heating issues as being the HIU, but that the managing agent had disagreed. It said that as such, it had engaged the HIU manufacturer.
3. It said that its position was that parts needed to be replaced in the HIU, and that it had escalated this to a more senior level within the managing agent when agreement could not be reached.
4. It advised that it had received confirmation that the managing agent’s contractors would order the HIU parts, and fit them in the presence of its own contractors. It said it was awaiting confirmation that this would be done on 24 March 2023.
5. It accepted that the resident had experienced an unsatisfactory service, and that it had not responded to her contacts as promptly as it would expect to. It said that the forthcoming works would establish whether it, or the managing agent was responsible for the heating issues. It said that if the fault was with the managing agent it would recommend that it compensates the resident, but that if the fault was its own it would award compensation in line with its policy.
On 21 March 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process. The resident’s key points were as follows:
1. She stated that she had reported the issue on 1 November 2022, not 2 December 2022 as the landlord had stated. She provided evidence to this affect (acknowledged by the landlord, but not seen by the Ombudsman).
2. She pointed out that her tenancy was with the landlord, not the managing agent, and so it should be the landlord who dealt with her compensation.
3. She said that the landlord’s communications had been very poor throughout, and that she had needed to constantly chase it for responses. She said that she had often had to deal with “rude and unprofessional engineers”.
4. She asked that her heating be fixed, and that the landlord advise how it will improve its process to avoid a reoccurrence. She further asked to be compensated for the excess temporary heating costs, and the impact on her wellbeing.
On 29 March 2023 the landlord confirmed the outcome of the 24 March 2023 attendance at the resident’s property to the managing agent. It stated that the resident’s radiators had heated up fully once the HIU parts had been replaced. It said that it had diagnosed the issue in December 2022, but that the managing agent’s unwillingness to accept it had delayed the repair until now.
On 12 April 2023 the landlord’s internal emails said that the resident’s HIU was causing further issues that had left her without heating or hot water. It said that the managing agent was attending the next day.
On 27 April 2023 the landlord issued the resident its stage 2 response. The key points were as follows:
1. It stated that at the start of November 2022, it had replied to the resident’s email that had reported heating issues, and asked a series of questions necessary to raise a repair. It said that it had not heard back from the resident until the following month.
2. It said that its stage 1 response had sought to clarify who was responsible for the different types of repairs, and not to shift responsibility. It said that its liaison with the managing agent should not impact service levels, but accepted the inconvenience caused by the significant delays.
3. It apologised that its stage 1 response had created the impression that it would not pay compensation if the fault lay with the managing agent. It confirmed that this was not its position.
4. It said that at stage 1 it had expected the heating issues to be resolved on 24 March 2023, and that it was unacceptable that the issues persisted. It said that it was due to attend again that day. It apologised that it had promised responses to the resident within certain timescales, which it had not always kept to.
5. It stated the standards expected of its own contractors, but that it had limited control over the managing agent’s. It invited the resident to provide specific instances of contractor conduct issues, which it would then deal with.
6. It agreed that compensation was due, but stated that it would not calculate this until the heating issue was resolved. It asked the resident to provide comparable energy bills from the relevant period, and the previous year.
7. It referred the resident to the Service if she remained dissatisfied.
On 2 May 2023 the resident provided the landlord with further feedback and updates regarding her heating issues, which she said was partly in the hope that lessons would be learnt (the Ombudsman has not seen the resident’s feedback letter). Over the following days the resident chased the landlord for complaint, and compensation updates.
On 12 May 2023 the landlord’s internal emails confirmed that the resident’s heating repairs had been completed on 9 May 2023, but that it was still chasing the managing agent regarding the works to her ceiling following the leak (the Ombudsman has seen no other record related to a leak).
On 22 May 2023 the landlord told the resident that it had reviewed her feedback letter. It stated that in view of the time taken to complete the resident’s heating repairs, it was offering her £717 compensation in line with its policy. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s offer, and asked for an explanation of how it had been calculated. She highlighted that she was still awaiting her ceiling repair, which she had requested dates for multiple times. The landlord replied that it would chase the works, and proposed that it review its compensation offer once they were complete.
On 1 June 2023 the managing agent confirmed to the landlord that it had attended the resident’s property the previous day, but had been unable to complete the ceiling repair. The following day the landlord told the resident that the ceiling repair had been rebooked for 5 June 2023, and that it would come back to her about its compensation offer. The resident confirmed that her ceiling was repaired on 5 June 2023.
The Ombudsman has not seen the landlord’s response to the resident regarding how it had calculated its compensation, or of its proposed review of its offer. During this investigation the resident told this Service that the landlord had advised her that its £717 offer remained unchanged.

Assessment and findings

Record keeping

The Service asked the landlord to provide contact and repair records relevant to the resident’s complaint, which concerned the landlord’s handling of her heating issues first reported on 1 November 2022.
The earliest contact record provided by the landlord to the Service was the resident’s complaint made on 3 March 2023. The latest contact record provided by the landlord was its email sent to the resident on 2 June 2023, which advised that it would come back to her regarding her compensation queries.
The landlord did not provide the Service with any form of contemporaneous repairs log or similar records. It did provide copies of relevant repairs emails, but the earliest of these was not sent until 29 March 2023, almost 5 months after the resident had first reported her heating issues.
The landlord provided the Service with a copy of its head lease for the resident’s block, which was accompanied by its explanation that the freeholder was responsible for maintenance of the communal parts. The landlord further stated that it was responsible for repairs and maintenance of ‘the property’, as defined in schedule 1 of its lease. The lease defined ‘the property’ as including the HIU. As above, the lease further distinguished between any HIU that served multiple areas, and those that solely served individual flats.
The information provided by the landlord did not indicate that the resident’s HIU served any area other than her property. It was therefore unclear on what basis the landlord considered the repair of the resident’s HIU to be the responsibility of the freeholder, although this did not appear to be disputed by the managing agent.
As such, at the outset of this investigation the Service again asked the landlord to provide the relevant contact and repair records. The landlord was further asked to provide information of how it had responded to the resident’s June 2023 compensation query, and to confirm its position regarding HIU repair responsibility.
The Service did not hear back from the landlord until 1 week after the deadline given. The landlord apologised for the delay, which it attributed to staff absence. It advised that its complaint case notes were incomplete, and so it could not confirm how the resident’s compensation had concluded until the relevant staff returned. It provided a copy of its internal email exchange that discussed the requested information. The emails stated that it believed the freeholder was responsible for HIU repairs, but that it would need to confirm this. The emails included the landlord’s repairs notes that were mainly from December 2022, and appeared not to include any attendances made solely by the managing agent. As this information was not contemporaneous, it has been referred to in the assessment below, but not in the summary of events above.
While the landlord’s internal emails commented on the relatively short deadline given by the Service to provide the information, it is noted that it was first requested on 22 November 2023. Furthermore, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to maintain its basic resident contact and repair records in a such a way as to be readily accessible to its staff. Similarly, it would also be expected that the landlord’s complaint case notes be up to date, and that it ensured that information regarding repair responsibility was available to any of its staff who may handle a resident’s repair report.
Clear record keeping is a core function of repair, and wider landlord services. It allows evidence to be provided to the Ombudsman when requested. More importantly, clear record keeping is essential to enable landlords to monitor outstanding reports and issues, and provide effective services to its residents. This is of particular importance when repair responsibilities are shared with an external third party. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report regarding managing agents was published in March 2022, and specifically refers to the need for “accurate and robust record keeping”.
Aside from providing the landlord with a ready means to evidence its actions to the Service, it is also reasonable to conclude that its poor record keeping contributed to some of the service failings detailed below. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping, and has made an order to this regard.
It is noted that the Ombudsman previously included record keeping as a significant concern in relation to the landlord’s overall service delivery when issuing a wider order under paragraph 54 (f) of the Scheme (see Ombudsman investigation 202200596). The record keeping issues identified in this investigation differ from those identified previously as they relate primarily to managing agents and the landlord’s provision of information to the Ombudsman. As such, the order included here specifically relates to these aspects of the landlord’s services.

Heating complaint

As detailed in the Spotlight report referred to above, the Ombudsman accepts that the responsiveness of managing agents can be variable, and that in some cases the ability of the landlord to influence this is limited. However, as the Spotlight report further states, “landlords should be able to demonstrate attempts at effective engagement with the managing agent to establish the root cause of the issues, develop clear action plans, and ensure that performance is both proactively and robustly monitored”. In this case the landlord has failed to demonstrate any of this, and the impact on the resident was both significant and protracted. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of heating issues, and made orders to this regard.
The resident first reported her heating issues to the landlord on 1 November 2022, but the landlord stated that she had not reported it until 2 December 2022. The resident disputed this, and the landlord later explained that it had replied to her November 2022 emailed report with a series of questions, but that a further month had passed before it heard from her again.
Following the resident’s initial report, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to seek further details from her. The resident’s response would have informed the landlord’s actions, and would have demonstrated a resolution focused approach. However, it is unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence regarding the resident’s initial reports, nor that the landlord made any attempt to follow up on the response that it said that it provided to her, or confirm that she had heating.
The landlord’s non-contemporaneous repair information referred to in the assessment above, included a note from what appeared to be its out of hours attendance on 3 December 2022, which said that it had left the resident’s heating working. Its further note stated that it had attended the resident’s property again on 14 December 2022, but had not gained access. The main repair note on the landlord’s email concerned a joint visit with the managing agent on 19 December 2022, which stated that the resident’s heating was again left working. The email stated that this job had been raised on 22 December 2022, 3 days after it took place. It is unclear whether this was a typographical error, perhaps due to the information not being an original repair record, or whether the works were raised retrospectively.
In either case, the resident made her complaint to the landlord on 3 March 2023, and referred to her having had “over 10 engineer visits”. The landlord’s response stated that it was aware of “approximately 6” attendances by the managing agent, and its own contractors. It is again acknowledged that the landlord may have had limited influence on the managing agent’s actions. Nevertheless, and as above, it is expected that the landlord proactively and robustly monitors its performance, which it has failed to demonstrate in this case. While the HIU repair responsibility may ultimately have sat with the freeholder, the tenancy and duty of care to the resident was the responsibility of the landlord.
The resident’s complaint highlighted that she had been without central heating for 4 months to date. The resident’s complaint further emphasised how poor she had found the landlord’s communication to be, and the time and trouble caused by the amount of chasing she had found it necessary to do. As above, the Ombudsman has seen no contact records from this 4 month period. However, the landlord did not dispute that there had been communication failings, and that the resident had received an unsatisfactory service.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 21 March 2023. It stated its belief that her heating issue was due to her HIU, which it said was the responsibility of the managing agent to repair. It described the effective stalemate that it had reached when the managing agent had refused to accept that the HIU was the cause, and the actions that it had taken to progress this. The Ombudsman has again seen no evidence of these actions, and as such is unable to assess how timely or appropriate they were.
The resident’s complaint also described the frustration caused by engineers attending unaware of why they were there, and the number of times she had needed to explain her ongoing heating issues as if for the first time. She further described how the landlord and managing agent’s contractors openly argued with each other in her property, and how at times they had directed this behaviour towards her. The resident was already experiencing the coldest part of the year without central heating. It was understandable that she described the further distress caused to her by the contractor’s behaviour and actions. It was appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident for specific instances of contractor conduct issues, which it committed to address. It is unclear whether the resident responded to this request, but the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it proactively followed up on it in any way.
The landlord’s stage 1 response advised that its own, and the managing agent’s contractors would be attending 3 days later to attempt a repair of the HIU. It stated that if this established that the managing agent had been responsible for the heating issues, it would recommend that the managing agent compensate the resident. It was unreasonable that it needed the resident to point out that her tenancy was with the landlord, not the managing agent, for the landlord to recognise the inappropriateness of its advice. The landlord did accept this at stage 2 of its complaint process, and appropriately apologised and corrected its position.
The landlord evidenced its contact with the managing agent on 29 March 2023, following their joint attendance to the resident’s property 5 days earlier. The next contemporaneous evidence seen by the Ombudsman was the landlord’s internal email on 12 April 2023 that stated that the resident was again without heating or hot water, and that the managing agent was attending the next day. The landlord subsequently confirmed that the resident’s heating was restored around 4 weeks later, on 9 May 2023. This was 27 weeks after the resident had first reported her heating issues, and meant that she had effectively spent the entire winter with, at best, intermittently functioning central heating.
Prior to this, on 27 April 2023, the landlord issued the resident its stage 2 complaint response that again accepted that she had experienced unacceptable delays. It was appropriate for the landlord to commit to compensating the resident, but to advise that it would not calculate its offer until her heating had been restored. It was also reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to provide comparable energy bills, which would allow it to calculate her increased expense from running temporary heaters. It is unclear whether the resident provided her bills, or whether the landlord’s subsequent compensation offer reflected her additional expenses. The landlord’s compensation offer to the resident has been further considered below.
A few days later the resident provided the landlord with further feedback of her experience of its handling of the heating issues to date. As she had done in her complaint, she again expressed her hope that the landlord had learnt lessons from the impact on her of its service failings, and asked how it would avoid a reoccurrence. This provided the landlord a further opportunity to demonstrate its learning from the outcomes of the resident’s complaint, and to offer her the reassurance that she had sought. The landlord’s failure to demonstrate that it took this opportunity was unreasonable.
In early May 2023, the resident chased the landlord for compensation and other updates. During their exchanges reference was made to a leak, and damage to a ceiling at the resident’s property. The landlord’s lack of records again mean that it is unclear when the leak occurred, or what had caused it. Nevertheless, as the landlord advised the resident that it would further delay calculating its compensation offer until it was repaired, and the managing agent took responsibility for the work, it is reasonable to conclude that the leak was associated with her heating issues. The need for the resident to again chase for updates, and progress of this work would have further added to her time, trouble, and frustration.
Later the same month the landlord advised the resident that it had reviewed her feedback, and offered her £717 compensation. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the offer, and asked the landlord how it had calculated it. The landlord responded to the resident with a commitment to review its offer. It is unreasonable that the Ombudsman has again seen no further related information. While it was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident compensation, it is the view of the Ombudsman that its offer was not proportionate to the time, trouble, and distress that she experienced over such a lengthy period.
The resident’s rent in 2020/21 was £1190 per month, or £274.62 per week based on a 52 week year, and has been used as an indicative figure. The resident’s lack of central heating over the winter months would have severely curtailed her use and enjoyment of her property, and the resident had also described the impact on her financially, and to her overall wellbeing.
In light of the maladministration identified, an amount of £1112.21 compensation has been ordered to reflect the impact that the delays and failings had on the resident’s use and enjoyment of her home (i.e. loss of amenities), being 15% of the resident’s indicative rental liability, for the 27 weeks from when she first reported her heating issues, to its repair being completed. This amount also gives consideration to the resident’s increased electricity cost, and is in addition to £150 awarded for the time, and trouble that the resident experienced in pursuing the matter.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of heating issues.

Reasons

The landlord’s failure to provide basic contact and repair records in a timely manner necessary for this investigation, was indicative of poor record keeping. It is acknowledged that the managing agent may have been responsible for the specific works required to the resident’s heating. Nevertheless, the landlord would be expected to be able to evidence that the managing agent’s performance was proactively and robustly monitored.
The landlord’s lack of records meant that it could only provide minimal evidence of its own actions, and almost none regarding those of the managing agent. The landlord has therefore failed to demonstrate that it effectively engaged with, or performance monitored the managing agent, nor otherwise took a resolution or customer focused approach.
The resident experienced around 27 weeks of severe heating issues, including the coldest months of the year. The distress and inconvenience of this would have been compounded by the landlord’s accepted communication failings, and the behaviour she described by contractors in her property. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise, and offer compensation to the resident for the significant delays and failings that she experienced, but its offer was not proportionate to their impact.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks the landlord:
1. Writes to the resident to apologise for the further failings identified in this report.
2. Pays the resident £1262.21 compensation, made up of:
  1. £1112.21 for the impact its delays, communication, and service failings had on the resident’s use and enjoyment of her home (i.e. loss of amenities);
  2. £150 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience the resident experienced in pursuing the matter.
3. This amount is separate from the landlord’s own compensation award of £717 (if that award was paid to the resident, it should be deducted from the £1262.21).
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman further orders that within 8 weeks the landlord reviews its processes with regards to managing agents, and its associated record keeping, against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Managing Agents, and Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) reports, and provides this Service with a copy of its findings.
The landlord should evidence compliance with this order to this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report.